Court rules that 32-year-old man’s sex with 17-year-old was legal… but pictures of it were not
Although a man who was 32 wasn’t breaking the law by having sex with a 17-year-old girl in 2008, he was by photographing the act, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Marshall Hollins was convicted in Stephenson County of making child pornography and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Is this not sad? It brings me to tears.
A good black man’s life destroyed, a girl’s boy friend taken away. All to protect her from "abuse".
Where is Al Sharpton?
Where is President Barack Obama. I know, if he had a son, it would be a street fighting thug like Trayvon Martin. Where are men’s rights activists?
Where are the feminists, for the girl’s rights to have a boy friend, and to have her pictures taken?
He admitted he had sex with the girl when she was 17, which is the age of sexual consent in Illinois.
In a 5-2 ruling, the high court said that although the law allows 17-year-olds to consent to sex, they are still minors, making photos or video of such sex child porn.
This is nothing new:
The two dissenting justices said that because the photos don’t show an illegal act, they shouldn’t be illegal.
The dissenting minority has a bit of decency and common sense.
‘There was nothing unlawful about the production of the photographs taken by defendant in this case because the sexual conduct between defendant and (the girl) was entirely legal,’ wrote Justice Anne Burke, who was joined by Justice Charles Freeman.
‘The photographs are therefore not child pornography as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court for purposes of the First Amendment.
Due to voodoo theory and falsified research about the child sex trauma myth (Rind Study), the US supreme court made an EXCEPTION to constitutional rights of the First Amendment.
In the above case, no "*child" has been harmed through an illegal act, so there should be no reason to make an exception to constitutional first amendment rights.
- Millions of children watch child porn daily: whenever they look into the mirror, whenever they look at their private parts, they see heinous child porn. It just does not make sense. See also Dr. Milton Diamond‘s research and Judge Weinstein on the harms of child porn laws.
Ill. Supreme Court: Sex With 17-Year-Old Was Legal, Pictures Were Not | CBS
-
Free Marshall Hollins
-
People vs. Hollins
-
CNET child porn issues
-
Google plans to wipe child porn from the Web:
Photos and videos of child pornography on the Web have multiplied at an alarming rate over the past few years. In 2011, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said it received 17.3 million images and videos of suspected child abuse, which is four times more than 2007.
Human-Stupidity comment: It is impossible to verify this because it is a felony to look at any of these photos -
Man gets fake FBI child porn alert, arrested for child porn
-
Sexting teen convicted of child pornography
-
Google, Microsoft ramp up fight against online child pornography:
The modifications will prevent more than 100,000 search terms from generating results that link to images and videos associated with child sex abuse and instead trigger a warning that the associated content is illegal. The restrictions, which apply to English-speaking countries, will be expanded to more than 150 languages in the next six months, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt wrote in an article for the … Read more
-
How Facebook fights child porn
Children depicted in these images and videos are victimized during the production and throughout their lives, as the images proliferate and continue to be viewed, often for many years
- You can enlist in the army at 17 (with parental permission), but you can’t understand the consequences of risque photographs until you’re 18. As for understanding what it is to have a Coors Light, well, you have to wait until you’re 21 for that.
More weird Sex News:
Warning: Child Porn photos in the Daily Mail link
It might be unsafe to click in the following link to a Daily Mail article. It contains photos 6 year old girls that appear to be naked.
Dance Moms hits a new low: Girls as young as EIGHT wear nude bikinis and dance burlesque routines in front of their mothers
Upon announcing the suggestive routine – ‘the audience should think that you are nude’, reveals Ms Miler – the show’s infamously competitive moms and their daughters are clearly shocked, as shown in the preview at Jezebel.
More hysterical lies:
Brazil’s child sex trade soars as 2014 World Cup nears
This is just insane! Basically, they are saying a photograph is more “traumatizing” than sex? Because private sex does not hurt the sexual market value of feminists quite as much as sharing of photos. Isn’t it?
@Antifeminist
If you are reading this…
Have you banned me or am I still welcome in your blog? I haven’t commented in your blog for about a month now. If I am such a pain to you, I will try to stay away. I never understood the reason though. I did not even comment there for more than a week before I read suddenly one day that you are declaring me and two others banned. In any case, I still wish you all the best – your movement is needed.
HS:
Ugh…I actually read the ‘A Voice for Male Students’ article. What a pathetic collection of ass-clowns must run that blog. They really belong more with Futrelle than with the MRM.
More “Equal injustice for all”: a female teacher sentenced for repeated sex 16 year old male student “victim”, who pleaded not to convict her.
http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/female-teacher-megan-denman-gets-four-months-jail-for-six-felony-counts-of-statutory-rape-doesnt-register-as-sex-offender-her-reaction-surprised-she-was-punished-at-all/
“It is impossible to verify this since it is a felony to look at such photos.”
Well…we all know that the paedocrites at Google are only accessing these photos ‘to bring public awareness to the problem’ and in ‘the interests of wiping child porn from the web.’
These are the same ass-clowns who designed spyware for the NSA and advanced surveillance and filtration systems for the Chinese government. So we can be sure the authorities view any ‘indiscretions’ by Google executives with a wink and a nod.
FYI, there’s pending legislation in the US now (in the federal courts) to allow corporations like Google greater control over Web content, much like television network executives can control programming. And sure, there won’t be any transparency about what goes to their ‘preferred customers’ because they can delete blogs like this if ‘not in the public interest.’
More British hysteria about what an old man did many decades ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745617
A bit in bad taste, the appropriate punishment would be a slap on the wrist, a slap in the face, by the woman, or a 2000 dollar fine for misbehaving.
Actually, men would do this type of rough jokes on each other all the time.
One more reason why women don’t belong into the armed forces. They don’t fit into a rough and tumble male environment.
And the marines had to abolish the 3 pushup requirement to avoid firing most of the women.
Cases such as this are so insane that I can barely summon the strength to read about them.
And MHRAs pretend that this is not a men’s rights issue??
Surely men’s rights supporters pretending that this is not a valid issue is more suspicious than men’s rights supporters pointing out that it is?